A rectangular site's frontage is doubled while its depth is halved, keeping area constant. What is the likely value effect in a retail district?
Correct Answer
A) Value depends on utility, access and market reaction
Constant area does not guarantee constant utility, and additional frontage does not guarantee higher value when depth is reduced. Analyze feasible site layout, access, setbacks and market evidence about buyer preferences. A depth table is useful only if relevant and supported, not a mandatory universal tool.
Why This Is the Correct Answer
Option A is correct because the value effect of changing frontage and depth depends on feasible utility, access and market reaction. A shallower, wider site may help or hurt a retail use depending on setbacks, parking, building layout and what buyers in that market pay for. Market evidence, not a fixed rule, determines the effect.
Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Option B: Value likely falls because retail depth is reduced
Option B says value likely falls because retail depth is reduced. Reduced depth may or may not lower value; added frontage could offset it, so this cannot be concluded without market evidence.
Option C: Value is unchanged because the land area is identical
Option C says value is unchanged because the land area is identical. Equal area does not ensure equal utility, since shape affects layout, access and appeal.
Option D: Value doubles in line with the doubled frontage
Option D says value doubles in line with the doubled frontage. Value does not rise in proportion to frontage, especially when depth is cut in half.
Same area, different utility
Two lots with equal area can have very different usefulness, so let the market show the effect of shape.
How to use: Use this to reject choices that predict value from area or frontage alone.
Exam Tip
When a choice predicts a fixed value change from a shape change, check whether it ignores utility and market evidence.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- -Assuming equal area means equal value
- -Assuming value rises in proportion to frontage
- -Applying a generic depth table without local support
Concept Deep Dive
Analysis
This question tests whether you avoid formula-based shortcuts about lot shape. Keeping area constant does not keep utility constant, and more frontage does not by itself raise value when depth is reduced. The effect depends on how the new shape affects feasible layout, access and buyer preferences.
Background Knowledge
Site utility depends on size, shape, frontage, depth, access and how these support the likely use. Depth tables and frontage rules can help only when they are relevant and supported by local market evidence. The principle of contribution measures how a site feature affects the value of the whole.
Real-World Application
An appraiser compares two retail lots of equal area, one wide and shallow and one narrow and deep. Paired sales in the district show how buyers weigh visibility against room for parking and building depth, and the appraiser adjusts on that basis.
More Land/Site Questions
How should an appraiser account for a site's access to public sewer compared with competing sites that require septic systems?
Which fact, if supported by competitive-market evidence, most directly supports a unit-price premium for an otherwise comparable site?
A downtown site's zoning height limit is reduced from six stories to three. Buyers in this market had been paying for six-story development potential. What effect on land value is most supportable?
A zoning change increases permitted density from four to eight units per acre. What is the likely effect on site value?
Using the allocation method, market evidence supports a typical land-to-total-property-value ratio of 28% for similar improved properties in the subject’s location. An improved comparable sold for $825,000. What land (site) contribution is indicated by applying that ratio?
An appraiser is valuing a vacant site near a landfill. A similar vacant site that is not affected by the landfill sold for $480,000. Paired land sales indicate that proximity to the landfill lowers site prices by $70,000. No other adjustments apply. What is the indicated value of the subject site?
An appraiser is extracting site value from a $600,000 cash sale. The seller's records show an original construction cost of $250,000 and a depreciated book value of $110,000. The appraiser estimates current replacement cost new at $400,000 and accrued depreciation from all causes at $100,000. What is the indicated site value?
Three parcels assembled under single ownership (standard appraisal guidance assemblage) support separate as-is values of $290,000, $340,000, and $250,000. After assemblage for a higher-utility use, the combined site is valued at $1,050,000. Assemblage costs (demolition, legal, holding, and related) total $55,000. What is the indicated net plottage (plottage increment after assemblage costs)?
A comparable commercial site with 65 front feet sold for a cash-equivalent price of $585,000. Per standard appraisal guidance, sale price per front foot is a vacant-land unit of comparison when frontage is a primary value determinant. The subject site has 72 front feet and is otherwise similar. What indicated land value does the front-foot unit support before other adjustments?
An appraiser's value indication for a whole property is $2,450,000, and the depreciated contribution of all nonland improvements, including site improvements, is $1,180,000. What land value does the extraction method indicate?
People Also Study
Real Estate Market
13.6% of exam
Property Description
11.8% of exam
Sales Comparison Approach
16.4% of exam
Cost Approach
13.6% of exam
Income Approach
8.2% of exam
Previous Question
Using the allocation method, market evidence supports a typical land-to-total-property-value ratio of 25% for similar improved properties in the subject’s location. An improved comparable sold for a cash-equivalent $960,000. What land (site) contribution is indicated?
Next Question
An appraiser is valuing a 7.0-acre vacant site by sales comparison. Comparable vacant land sales indicate a price of $45,000 per acre. What land value is indicated?